Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-05-19OREGON I. CALL TO ORDER A City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Minutes May 19, 2008 Acting Chair Nan Binkley called the Development Review Commission meeting of May 19, 2008, to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners present besides Acting Chair Binkley were Alby Heredia, Krytsyna Stadnik and Don Richards. Chair Bill Tierney was excused. Staff present were Hamid Pishvaie, Asst. Planning Director; Jessica Numanoglu, Association Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; and Janice Bader, Administrative Support. III. MINUTES Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of April 7, 2008. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve the Minutes of April 21, 2008. Mr. Richards seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. IV. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER (None) V. PUBLIC HEARING LU 06-0080, (on remand from the City Council), a request by Barbara and Brenda Giddings for approval of the following: • A minor partition to divide the 1.5 -acre site into two parcels; and, • The removal of two trees in order to construct a shared driveway and utilities. The project had been appealed to the City Council. The Council remanded it to the DRC for review and consideration of revised site plans. Location of Property: 16820 Chapin Way (Tax Lot 6700 of Tax Map 2 1 IODD) Acting Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. She asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Binkley City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 1 of 6 Minutes of May 19, 2008 (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); and Stadnik (civil engineer). Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated May 16, 2008). She explained that the applicant proposed to shift the previously approved lot line between the two lots 15 feet north, but the resulting lot sizes and dimensions would still meet zoning regulations. She said she understood that the applicant and appellants had negotiated a private agreement that the setback along the north side of Parcel 2 was to be 25 feet, which was larger that the 15 feet the Code required. She advised the Code did not enforce private agreements. She recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report. During the questioning period, she confirmed the applicant had submitted a tree protection plan and she said she did not know the terms of the private agreement. Applicant John Pinkstaff, counsel for the applicants testified that the parties had reached private agreement to expand the setback. When asked, he confirmed that the agreement also had other provisions that limited future development by the applicant. Mr. Boone advised the Commission decision was whether the current application met current Code standards. Proponents Larry Sokol, 16825 Jaylee, explained that most neighbors disagreed with the previous Commission approval, because of the likelihood that the applicants would eventually propose to partition their parcel again for another lot and remove a stand of some of the oldest oalc trees in the City (see Exhibit E-24). He explained that the parties had reached a private agreement and signed a private covenant that ran with the land that they believed would save most of the trees and would not leave enough room for another lot. However, he stressed that the City should have saved them the effort and protected the trees in the first place. During the questioning period, he confirmed the covenants would also bind future owners of the parcel. He said the agreed -to adjustment of the lot line went through the middle of the stand of trees the neighbors wanted to protect. There was no other testimony. Deliberations No one requested additional time to submit additional evidence. Acting Chair Binkley closed the public hearing. The applicants waived their right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. The Commissioners indicated they were pleased that the parties were able to come to an agreement that would save significant trees. Ms. Stadnik moved to approve LU 06-0480. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Acting Chair Binkley announced final vote would be held on June 2, 2008. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 2 of 6 Minutes of May 19, 2008 LU 08-0004, a request by Butler Development, LLC, for approval of the following: • A 7 -lot single family residential Planned Development, and, Removal of three trees Location of Property: 1040 C Avenue and 530 10th Street (Tax Lots 3800 and 3900 of Tax Map 2 IE 3CB) Acting Chair Binkley opened the public hearing and explained the applicable procedure and time limits. She asked the Commissioners to report any ex parte contacts (including site visits), biases and conflicts of interest, and to identify any known present or anticipated future business relationships with the project or the applicant. Mr. Heredia and Mr. Richards each reported they had made a site visit. Each of the Commissioners present declared their business or occupation as follows: Binkley (architect); Heredia (real estate broker); Richards (arborist and landscape architect); and Stadnik (civil engineer). No one present challenged any Commissioner's right to hear the application. Jessica Numanoglu, Associate Planner, presented the staff report (dated May 9, 2008). She reported that all existing structures on the site were to be removed. She read aloud a letter from Paden and Norma Pritchard, who wrote they generally supported the proposal, but they wanted to encourage the developer to deconstruct the buildings and offer the lots to individuals who would build custom homes. She advised that maximum density was eight lots, but the applicant was proposing a Planned Development (PD) and minimum density of seven lots. She said the site featured a cluster of Douglas fir trees in the northeast corner and some large cedars and firs around the perimeter. She explained Lots 6 and 7 were flag lots, which were subject to Flag Lot regulations, including a height limit of the higher of 22 feet, or the average of abutting heights (whish was 16.6 feet). She advised the proposed flag lots complied with those regulations. Ms. Numanoglu reported that a PD could be granted exceptions if the resulting plan provided the same or better sense of privacy, scale, and open space than a plan without exceptions. She said the requested exceptions would allow smaller lots than the R-10 zone allowed and reduce some internal setbacks. She recommended the Commission approve the exceptions because staff found the proposal offered more open space than the Code required and protected some mature trees; it offered privacy and a buffer between PD lots; and it created a more attractive streetseape. She said all setback reductions were internal to the development. She said the landscape plan used landscaped berms for privacy and buffering; it planned a pathway; and it worked with the "Green Street" design of 101h Street. She said staff supported granting a permit to remove two trees for a driveway because the Tree Code allowed removal for development purposes. However, staff did not support the current request to permit removal of Tree #25 to make room for the driveway to Lot 5, because the exact location of the garage and driveway was not yet known. She recommended approval of the application, subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report. During the questioning period, she clarified that the adjacent R-6 zone minimum lot size was 6,000 sq. ft. She said the applicant's arborist's report referred to 13 trees, but that included trees that might be removed for construction of homes, which the builder had to City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 3 of 6 Minutes of May 19, 2008 apply for at the time they applied for a building permit. She confirmed the private drive could be used to access Lots 4 and 5. She confirmed that the Engineering Department staff had reviewed the on -street parking proposal. She said the applicant proposed some angled, on -street parking to address neighbors' concerns. She confirmed that certain exceptions to the flag lot height limit were allowed under certain conditions, but the resulting height was a factor in determining allowable lot coverage. She agreed the solar building line was incorrectly positioned in the exhibits, and she pointed to its general location. Applicant Bruce Goldson, Compass Engineering, 4145 SE International Way, Milwaukie, Oregon, explained that the applicant had designed the landscape and angled parking so it would complement the City's Green Street improvements on 10th Street. He advised that maximum allowable density would have been eight units without the private drive. He said the applicant had taken advantage of allowable PD "trade-offs" by reducing lot sizes in order to maximize open space. He said they had allocated the project's total FAR in a manner that gave the lower, single -story, structures on the two flag lots more room to spread out on the lots. He said the applicant was only requesting reduced setbacks on interior lots, and some of those setbacks would be against open space. He clarified that the applicant wanted to reduce front yard setbacks on the flag lots to 15 feet, not 10 feet, as staff reported. He said the open space, landscape plan and conservation easement protected clusters of large trees. He referred to the utility plan and reported the applicant had conducted infiltration tests to ensure runoff would stay on site. He announced that the applicant would withdraw the request to remove the tree on Lot 4 because they had no house plan for that lot yet. He confirmed there was adequate right-of-way for the angled parking. Bryan Butler, Butler Development, LLC, 4320 Hagen St, confirmed the right-of-way had enough room for on -street parking spaces. He said he had calculated the location of the solar building line that day and found it would work, but he concurred with the rest of the staff report. During the questioning period, Acting Chair Binkley and Mr. Richards observed the plan called for a lot of turf along the edge of 101h Street. Mr. Richards cautioned the applicant to ensure that area had sufficient drainage if it were irrigated to keep the grass green. Acting Chair Binkley suggested using more natural vegetation there that would fit the aesthetics of the rest of the street. The applicant explained a swale would address runoff. He explained his concept to install rain gardens and to install landscaped berms so residents would not be inclined to install fencing. Proponents Jack Hoffman, 567 9th St., asked for additional conditions of approval to ensure staff was satisfied that the applicant adequately addressed drainage, and which would allow the City to enter and maintain the "semi-public" open space on the northeast corner opposite City -owned public space (if the City decided that was necessary) and charge PD residents for that cost. He said that would ensure that area fit the streetscape and the adjacent City park. Staff pointed out one of the recommended conditions of approval would allow the City to do that. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 4 of 6 Minutes of May 14, 2008 Neither for nor Allainst Tim Green, 740 7th St., suggested that if the application would impact traffic at the Six - Corners intersection, the plan should be coordinated with a change of traffic flow at that intersection. Ms. Numanoglu advised the seven -residence project would generate less traffic than the existing church use, but the Engineering staff had asked the Transportation Advisory Board to consider changes to the intersection. Acting Chair Binkley observed that the applicant proposed to install a sidewalk along C Avenue. Carol Ockert, 910 Cumberland Rd., clarified that she served as Vice Chair of the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, but was testifying as an individual. She said making traffic changes at the intersection was a complicated issue that affected many neighborhoods and should be addressed in a different venue. Ms. Numanoglu pointed out applicant was correct and there was an error on page 6 of the staff report. She said the report should clarify that the applicant asked that the required 25 -foot front yard setback on Lots 6 and 7 to be reduced by 10 feet. Rebuttal Mr. Goldson said the traffic problem on C Avenue was one the applicant had could not solve. He agreed with the condition that allowed the City to enforce maintenance of the open space. Deliberations No one requested that the record be held open for additional testimony and evidence. Acting Chair Binkley closed the public hearing. The applicant waived his right to additional time in which to submit a final written argument. Ms. Stadnik said that she could accept the reduced lot sizes because of the landscape plan, the fact that only interior setbacks would be reduced, and the fact that lots in the adjacent R-6 zone were also smaller. She observed the applicant's landscape architect and engineering consultant would be addressing the drainage issue. She noted the issue of permitting removal of two trees, rather than three trees, and the issue of allowing the City to come into the open space to maintain it when necessary were already addressed in staff recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Heredia was concerned about the amount of lot coverage on the flag lots. Acting Chair Binkley recalled that amount of lot coverage was needed because houses there were limited to 22 feet height. Mr. Heredia anticipated the proposed landscaping would fit the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Richards reported that his concerns had been addressed, but he cautioned that it was very important to ensure adequate drainage for the Douglas firs in the northeast corner. Acting Chair Binkley indicated she favored the significant amount of landscaping the application proposed. She observed that many of the requested setback reductions were next to open space. She indicated she was still concerned there was not enough on -street parking, but she observed there would be places to park on the driveways. City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 5 of 6 Minutes of May 19, 2008 Ms. Stadnik moved to approve LU 08-0004 subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff and to correct the staff report to say that the applicant was asking to reduce the required 25 -foot front yard setback on Lots 6 and 7 by 10 feet. Mr. Heredia seconded the motion and it passed 4:0. Acting Chair Binkley announced the final vote would be held on June 2, 2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------- LU 08-0019, a request by Renaissance Homes for approval of a Master Plan for an 18 -lot single-family residential development, and removal of 50 trees to accommodate the proj ect. Location of Property: 12800 Goodall Rd. (Tax lot 500 of Tax Map 21E04 BA). This hearing has been continued indefinitely. VI. GENERAL PLANNING & OTHER BUSINESS When staff inquired, the Commissioners confirmed they found the Planning Commission Journal useful. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being not further business Chair Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L\dre\minutes`•,May 15, 2008.doc City of Lake Oswego Development Review Commission Page 6 of 6 Minutes of May 19, 2008